John Kerry: U.S. won’t wait on Syria for very long

Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday a Russian proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control was the “ideal” end to the escalating dispute, but warned: “We‘re not waiting for long.”

“This cannot be a process of delay,” he told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “This cannot be a process of avoidance.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Kerry: We need you Congress

And he said the new diplomatic push was the direct result of the threat of a U.S. attack on the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, crediting President Barack Obama for his resolve and urging members of Congress to stand with the commander in chief.

“No political solution will ever be achievable as long as Assad believes he can just gas his way out of this predicament,” Kerry said. “We need you, the Congress.”

Hawkish Republicans on the committee grilled Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey on Tuesday over their plan of attack in Syria amid a flurry of international developments that could forestall a U.S. strike.

Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), who wants the Pentagon to get some reprieve from sequestration as part of any deal to authorize strikes against Syria, pressed the witnesses over how a cash-strapped military would pay for an attack, leading to a pointed exchange with Dempsey.

“We can find the money to pay for it,” the general explained, saying a strong response to the reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime was in the national interest.

“I have no doubt that you can find the money, general,” McKeon said. “It’s just where you find it.”

At one point, an exasperated Kerry — under questioning from Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) about whether the Pentagon can afford to wage a military campaign against Syria even as it absorbs deep spending cuts — declared: “This is not a budget hearing.”

Sitting behind Hagel at the hearing was Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale, whose presence suggested the witnesses anticipated a number of budget-related questions.

Kerry told lawmakers the diplomatic push over Russia’s proposal was no reason for Congress to delay authorizing the use of force in Syria. “The president believes we need to keep this threat — this reality — absolutely on the table,” Kerry said. “He wants the Congress to act.”

He explained that he plans to talk to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the hearing about the Russian proposal. Earlier, news came that the president had agreed to engage in discussions at the United Nations to “explore seriously the viability” of the proposal.

Kerry appears to have set the diplomatic push in motion on Monday — apparently by happenstance — when he was asked by a reporter in London whether Assad could do anything to prevent a U.S. attack. “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week,” Kerry said, adding: “He isn’t about to do it.”

An hour before the hearing, a Republican congressional aide said Kerry and Hagel had not submitted prepared opening statements to the committee, calling the move “highly unusual.” Prepared statements, the aide said, are normally provided to the committee a day in advance of hearings — meaning the testimony was likely being tweaked right up to the last minute to account for the shifting international developments.

“Statements aren’t required until just before the start of the hearing,” said a senior defense official.

On Monday night, the president suggested he was open to a diplomatic resolution to the situation in Syria, telling CNN, “It’s certainly a positive development when the Russians and Syrians both make gestures towards dealing with these chemical weapons.”

But, he cautioned, “We don’t want just a stalling or delaying tactic to put off the pressure that we have on there right now.”

Hagel and Kerry faced a number of lawmakers opposed to a strike on Syria, including most of the senior Republican members of the committee, in a hearing that was more hostile than two sessions last week before the House and Senate foreign relations panels.

Forbes, for one, asked Hagel which posed a greater threat to the U.S. military: the Syria situation or 10 years of defense cuts under sequestration. And Hagel acknowledged, over the long term, sequestration would be more damaging — but said that’s not the issue at hand.

Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) asked how the Pentagon chief would justify a new military campaign amid civilian furloughs put in place earlier this year as a result of the automatic spending cuts. And, responding, Hagel explained that immediate national security interests should trump budget concerns.